BONSALL COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP Dedicated to ......Dedicated to enhancing and preserving a rural...

BONSALL COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP Dedicated to enhancing and preserving a rural lifestyle

1

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/Groups/Bonsall.html

August 17, 2013 TO: Mark Slovick, Planning Manager, Lilac Hills Ranch Project Department of Planning & Development Services County of San Diego FROM: The Bonsall Community Sponsor Group RE: Accretive Investment Group proposal DEIR –DEIR Public Comment to the Proposed Accretive Lilac Hills Ranch General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan PDS2012-3800-12-001(GPA),PDS2012-3810-12-001 (SP) GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Introduction: In comments submitted over the last year, the Bonsall Sponsor Group and the Bonsall Design Review Board have challenged the applicants assertions that this SP/GPA is consistent with the adopted County General Plan [GP], or with Bonsall’s Community Plan [CP], or with Bonsall Design Guidelines. Our previous comments, which are attached, have also challenged the logic exhibited throughout Accretive Investment Group’s Specific Plan and now in their Draft Environmental Impact Report: that amending a particular GP Regional Category to suit the project somehow also reconciles the project’s inconsistencies with a wide array of General and Community Plan Goals and Policies. We believe the proposed SP/GPA is inconsistent with the County’s General Plan and the Community Plans of both Bonsall and Valley Center, as well as with a number of other adopted planning documents. Further, we think the DEIR fails to disclose these broad and fundamental inconsistencies and is derelict in concluding that “Overall the project would be consistent with the General Plan; therefore land use impacts associated with policy inconsistencies would be less than significant” (Chapter 3 Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant (p 3-65). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a General Plan consistency analysis and supportable conclusions. How can the DEIR conclude that planning impacts are ‘insignificant” without these analyses? This DEIR fails to perform the analyses required for decision makers, first, to understand the parameters of this proposal, and, second, to appreciate the nature and reach of its impacts. Why? Internal consistency of all County General Plans in California is required by California State Law. Therefore, in considering a Specific Plan, particularly one that requires amendments to an adopted General Plan, it is crucial to understand exactly where the Specific Plan is inconsistent with General Plan regional categories, land use designations and road classifications, principles, elements, goals and policies. Why was this not done? A Specific Plan is an implementation vehicle. Approval requires consistency with CEQA; consistency as well with the web of interconnected and mutually-supporting elements of the County General Plan, and consistency with the array of implementation actions, strategies and procedures that are in place to achieve the goals and policies that the General Plan sets forth. Inconsistency requires denial of the project OR adapting the General Plan to fit the Specific Plan – the tail wagging the dog. Broad and fundamental amendments to adopted General and Community plans would require county-wide environmental review when will this be done? Page 1 - 56


2


We all can understand why the applicants might want to avoid disclosing the array of GP and CP Goals and Policies that this project violates. But CEQA’s purpose is not to gloss over or obscure inconsistencies in order to ease approval of this project. CEQA’s purpose is disclosure. Therefore, the DEIR for this SP/GPA must reckon specifically and individually with the General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles and the reflection of these in the Community Development Model, as well as with Goals and Policies across the GP’s seven elements: Land Use, Mobility, Conservation and Open Space, Housing, Safety and Noise; as well as goals and policies of the Bonsall and Valley Center Community Plans. Once inconsistencies are disclosed there are only three ways to resolve them: reject the project, re-design the project, or re-build the County General Plan to suit these applicants. Is this the goal of this project? Inconsistencies with General and Community Plans, Design Guidelines and other ordinances and policies are NOT subordinate to this project’s Specific Plan, as the Specific Plan asserts. Why was this statement circulated in the DEIR?

1. Why is there NO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REPORT? Nowhere is there analysis of this project’s consistency with GP Goals and Policies. There are CLAIMS of GP “conformance” but no data to support them WHY? Where is the data to support claims of GP conformance?

2. Why does this proposal fail to meet the LEED Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND)PRE-

REQUISITE location criteria? This will be mentioned several times in this document to be answered by staff.

LEED ND cites as key smart growth strategies the building on previously constructed development sites or ‘infill’ sites [surrounded or mostly surrounded by previously developed land]. When a smart growth site is selected, there is no additional loss of biological habitat or excessive land gouging. For this Project, LEED ND was not respected nor observed why? Why was LEED ND neither observed nor respected as a selected “smart growth” site? Oddly, the County General Plan recognizes the importance of LEED ND criteria and cites them as part of its principles. But, the DEIR and the applicant has subverted them in this case. What was the reason that the DEIR did not analyze the Project in terms of its consistency with LEED ND ? Given that, this project is a “leapfrog development, it must be certified as consistent with LEED ND requirements or its equivalent? If using an equivalent standard for certification, what is the equivalent standard?

3. Why is it that Valley Center and Bonsall bear more than a fair share of San Diego County General Plan growth even before the addition of the proposed Lilac Hills Ranch project?

a. The General Plan growth in housing units across the entire County of San Diego is summarized in

Table X-Y below. Table X-Y San Diego County General Plan Housing Unit Forecast 2010-2050 Page 2 - 56


3


Bonsall Housing Units as reflected in the August 2011 General Plan are growing 59% from 2010 to 2050, nearly 2 times the rate of the County overall. This project has suggested changes to our Bonsall Community Plan that support a new town center designation in an area designated as agricultural in our community plan. We followed the goals of the General Plan by placing our density where sewer service and all of our current density planning is designated. Why would the county approve a plan that does not support our established goals by placing a community center outside of our current community plan? This project is a ‘COMMUNITY BUSTER” and a “growth inducer” that is not supported in the General Plan or the Community Plan why is this allowed? Growth is also planned at the traditional town center, close to the intersection of SR-76 and Mission Road, where necessary infrastructure for dense, urban development is in either on the ground or planned (and funded) to be added shortly. This project has the ability to change the Bonsall Community Plan and create a second town center on our boundary with Valley Center where we have designated a buffer of large lots and agriculture. Why should this project be allowed to change the Bonsall Community Plan with this designation? What about future landowners that can no long use their land for agriculture and sell to other developers that want to create more density and another town center? Why bother with a community plan if developers can subvert it to whatever they want with little regard to the communit? The combined composite effects of adding Lilac Hills Ranch in addition to General Plan growth is provided in Table Y-Z below:

Table Y-Z Bonsall and Valley Center Composite Housing Unit Analysis % Growth from 2010 Housing Units 2010

to 2020 to

2010 t0

2010 2020 2030 2050 2020 2030 2050 Bonsall 3,875 4,320 5,149 6,151 11.5% 19.2% 58.7% Valley Center 6,638 7,627 9,795 13,411 14.9% 28.4% 102.0% Subtotal General Plan

10,513 11,947 14,944 19,562 13.6% 25.1% 86.1%

Lilac Hills Ranch (LHR)

746 1,746 1,746

Total with LHR included

10,513 12,693 16,690 21,308 20.7% 31.5% 102.7%

Reference: SD County growth

1,158,076 1,262,488 1,369,807 1,529,090 9.0% 8.5% 32.0%

Page 3 - 56


4


The chart below is Bonsall’s population growth/density without Lilac Hills Ranch.

FIRE PROTECTION PLAN (FPP) Why doesn’t the proposed Lilac Hills Ranch (LHR) Project FPP meet the following basic requirements identified below by Issue Number?

1. Of the three Fire Station site Options proposed by the Applicant, none meet the minimum acceptance criteria of the Deer Springs Fire Protection District (DSFPD). The Charter of the DSFPD focuses on providing no greater than 5 minute emergency response time to the ENTIRE DSFPD, of which the proposed LHR Project is a subset. WHY is this allowed?

2. The Applicant states in the FPP that the LHR Project fully complies with the DSFPD Ordinance No. 2010-01, County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code, and County of San Diego Public and Private Road Standards. The LHR has factual compliance issues with all of these regulations. WHY is this allowed?

Page 4 – 56


5


3. The FPP focuses nearly exclusively on Wildfire Management and does not sufficiently address either Structure Fires or Emergency Medical Service (EMS) WHY?

4. The FPP doesn’t adequately address and analyze the Environmental Impact of the use of six electronic road gates on fire access roads WHY?

5. Fuel Modification Zones (FMZ) – The applicant appears to rely on other property owners outside the LHR Subdivision boundaries to comply with the 100 foot FMZ requirement WHY?

Each of the five Issues above is substantiated as follows. Issue 1 – Acceptable siting Options for a Fire Station servicing the LHR Project - The following information has been synthesized from (documents provided by the Valley Center Planning Group in their submittal) the 6/12/13 (Attachment A), 3/5/2013 (Attachment B), and 8/7/2013 (Attachment C) DSFPD Letters. In addition, Valley Center Community Planning Group members had a 2 hour meeting with Chief Amestoy as well as telephone conversations with respect to Environmental Impacts of the proposed LHR Project. Information from these interchanges are reflected below and included in the Valley Center submittal. - The DSFPD Charter is to provide Fire and EMS services for the entire District, including the potential LHR Project. -DSFPD owns three fire stations (Station 11- 8709 Circle R Drive, Escondido; Station 12 - at 1321 Deer Springs Road, San Marcos; and Station 13 - at 10308 Meadow Glen Way East, Escondido.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WILD FIRES

The present plan appears to ignore buffering of neighboring agricultural operations completely. This Project is replete with sensitive receptors such as schools, parks, homes, a church and a senior assisted living facility. Does the applicant anticipate that the County will impose buffer areas on the surrounding agricultural operations after approval of the Project? Have the surrounding agricultural operations been notified that their operations may be significantly impacted if buffering is imposed on them rather than the applicant? Policy S-11.5 seems to put the burden of buffering on the applicant, not the existing agricultural operations. Will this be one of the General Plan policies that will be changed to accommodate the Project at the expense of established agriculture? A reasonable analysis of the buffering requirement would conclude that buffering surrounding agricultural operations from the Project presents a significant impact to existing agriculture. The applicant’s “Analysis of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance,” [2.7.2] points to how significant this impact is: The project would result in a significant impact if it would: 1. Hazardous Substance Handling: Create a significant hazard to the public through the use of

hazardous substances. While the applicant’s intention was to discuss the applicant’s proposed on-site handling of hazardous materials, that discussion should have also included the issue of buffering the application of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, amendments and fertilizers by existing agricultural operations. More than one operation adjacent to the Project uses helicopters to apply agricultural chemicals to broad swaths of orchards and fields. Overspray could be an issue if not properly buffered. How will the applicant address this CEQA mandatory finding of significance? Will the allowance of less than 100 ft buffer in the Bonsall area require existing agricultural to deal with the additional buffer impact????? Page 5 - 56


6


– EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND EVACUATION PLANS

The DEIR cites the Operational Area Emergency Plan and the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as mechanisms or protocols that would mitigate cumulative impacts to emergency response and evacuation plans. The DEIR fails to address those problems from the Valley Center or Bonsall community perspectives. The mobility element roads nearest the Project are West Lilac Road and Circle R Road. Both of those roads were built to serve a rural community with small, rural populations. How did this failed plan pass county staff? In the event of an emergency evacuation, such as occurred in 2003 and 2007, much of the population of Valley Center and Bonsall existing population will be exiting to the Interstate-15 corridor and Highway 76 all at once, not just the residents of the proposed Project. While the Operational Area and Multi-jurisdictional plans may help to organize first responders and emergency personnel, the congestion on the limited number of mobility element roads will be intense and long lasting and will affect both evacuees and emergency personnel, who are generally headed in both easterly and a westerly direction. Such congestion could result in serious harm to thousands of people if a fire should overtake them while trapped in traffic. How was this proven evacuation problem not considered? If considered then why was this project allowed to go forward as submitted? Why would the County allow the applicant to propose to further exacerbate that bad situation by asking for 10 road standard modifications that would lower the classification of the mobility element roads in some cases, and lower the design speeds of those roads. The Bonsall Sponsor Group does not support lowering standards and would find the issue of liability that the County will take on with this project a folly of great magnitude? With lower design speeds and narrower roadways, this Project will imperil the evacuation of the Valley Center and Bonsall existing residents and impede the prospective residents of the Project at the same time. Such a large urban Project located in a rural setting with limited mobility options could single-handedly, never mind cumulatively, severely and significantly put hundreds of people at risk in the event of a large scale fire like those experienced in 2003 and 2007.

WILD LAND FIRES

The location of urban densities adjacent to a ‘very high FHSZ’ does not present itself as a smart location consistent with preventative land use planning. The present General Plan incorporates land use and zoning designations that concentrate high-density housing at the core of the Valley Center and Bonsall communities. Such high densities were not planned for the margins of the two communities. Those areas were intentionally planned for large acreages to accommodate agricultural pursuits according to the Community Development Model. WHY would the General Plan be allowed to be subverted by this developer financial gain and allowed to change the General Plan? If approved, this Project will defeat the intent of the Community Development Model by locating a dense urban development away from the village cores of Bonsall and Valley Center in an area prone to very high wildfire hazards. Why hasn’t the applicant overlain the Fire Hazard Severity Zones on a Project map to indicate the locations of the very high FHSZ. Such a map would allow a more informed evaluation of the probable risks to the Project and surrounding properties and how those risks should be handled. Such information is crucial to decision-makers? Page 6 – 56


7


This paragraph also relates to Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans as noted on previous page. The mitigation proposed is to acquire an easement on adjacent property that is not a part of the Project so the FMZ can be extended to the full 100-feet. Why would this be allowed? Barring that, the applicant proposes to use ignition resistant construction methods and other non-combustible features to purportedly achieve the same level of fire resistance as the 100-foot FMZ. Presuming such construction techniques could work, one would think that the applicant would employ them regardless of the deficient FMZ simply because it’s a safer course when building at the wildland-urban interface. Has the applicant considered prudent course of modifying the configuration of those portions of the Project in those very high FHSZ to accommodate the standard FMZ? A Project of this density and design is inappropriate at this location regardless of building standards and fuel modification plans given the proximity to dense on-site and off-site native fuels [the WUI very high FHSZ], the inconsistent use of a standard 100-foot FMZ, the inadequate evacuation routes for over 5000 residents and the uncertainty surrounding how will fire protection services will be provided please define?

MANDATORY FINDINGS

The California Legislature has determined that certain specified changes to the environment are significantly adverse by definition. These are often called mandatory findings of significance. As a result of the legislature’s determination a lead agency must conclude that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project does any of the following:

1. Has the potential to degrade substantially the quality of the environment; 2. Has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals at the expense of long-term

environmental goals; 3. Has potential environmental effects that are individually insignificant but cumulatively

considerable; 4. Has the potential to cause substantial adverse direct and indirect impacts on human beings; 5. Has the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California prehistory or

history; 6. Has the potential to change adversely the sgnificance of a designated historical structure; 7. Has the potential to reduce substantially the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 8. Has the potential to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 9. Has the potential to threaten or eliminate a plan or animal community; or, 10. Has the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or

threatened species.

How does the County justify moving forward after reading the California Legislature mandatory findings of significance and reviewing the 268 page “PROJECT ISSUE CHECKLIST” created by staff?

How did staff determined that several of the 10 mandatory findings have not caused this project to be rejected upon submission?

Page 7 - 56


8


Staff identified in the Scoping Letter/Project Issue Checklist one-hundred twenty-one (121) GP Policy conflicts and one-hundred seventy-four (174) policy conflicts in the Bonsall and Valley Center Community Plans and the General Plan. These have not been analyzed in the DEIR (or anywhere else). Why not? Earlier in the review of this project a “Project Issue Checklist” listed (on 350-plus pages) more than 1000 project “issues” with various planning documents. The list included Major Project Issues (with GP Policies) as well as GP and CP Policies that posed potential conflicts. Analyses of these “issues” are essential to a General Plan Amendment. How else can anyone understand what the GPA proposes to amend? The staff directive to the applicant at that time was, “Please immediately review the policies and indicate to staff how you would propose to revise these policies or if you disagree with staff’s analysis. If policy revisions are required to the County’s General Plan, then the project’s EIR must also analyze the impacts to the County’s General Plan.” In subsequent editions, the “Checklist” refers the reader to other documents – in some instances to a GPAR (General Plan Amendment Report), in others to the Land Use Section of the EIR. Where is the report that is mentioned in both documents? CEQA requires these analyses, and the DEIR omits them. The DEIR (in Section 3.1.4.1, pp 3-56 – 3-64) lists what it calls the “relevant policy and regulatory framework” for the project. But this list is not the detailed analyses that CEQA requires; instead, under the rubric of “Existing Conditions” this section is mainly a summary of applicable planning documents. WHY has staff taken this point of omitting relevant policy and regulatory framework? Examples are rife, here are a few: Section 3.1.4.2 (p 3-64) is titled “Analysis of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance.” Here in the subsection “Impact Analysis” analyses of specifics are either missing or inadequate, and replaced with brief descriptions of the project followed by assertions. Such as:

a. Without bothering even to acknowledge the array of GP policies that would have to change in order to approve this SP/GPA, the DEIR concludes: “The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment which, if approved, would result in the project being consistent with the General Plan.” It is not consistent with the General Plan and that is a fact Why the double speak?

b. There is no discussion of LEED ND criteria, and the GP Community Development Model is presented

as if it is no more than an arrangement of densities rather than a reflection of a whole complex of interdependent ideas about sustainable development. Nevertheless, the DEIR asserts that “the proposed project would be consistent with the Community Development Model of the County General Plan and designed to meet the LEED Neighborhood Development Certification or an equivalent.” How is this possible please explain?

c. The policy is in some cases asserted by repeating the language of the policy itself. For LU1.2:

“the project is not “leap frog development” because it is designed to conform to the Community Development Model, provides necessary services and facilities, and would be designed to meet the LEED Neighborhood Develop Certification or an equivalent.

Page 8 - 56


9


For LU3-1, LU3-2 and LU3-3: “The project likewise provides “a complete neighborhood” to include a neighborhood center within easy walking distance of surrounding residences while providing a mixture of residential land use designations and development regulations that accommodate various building types and styles.”

d. d. In a few cases where the SP/GPA proposes amendments to Mobility Element road classifications or acceptable LOS levels, the DEIR argues that the SP/GPA is not inconsistent with the GP because relaxing the standards makes it consistent. Again, the point here is that consistency is achieved only by amending the General Plan to fit the project.

Please review what a LEED ND project is (below) and then what was written by the applicant and staff (above) as this project does not demonstrate the definition of what a LEED ND is. Why was this project allowed to go through the county process with this as a basis? LEED ND cites as key smart growth strategies the building on previously constructed development sites or ‘infill’ sites [surrounded or mostly surrounded by previously developed land]. When a smart growth site is selected, there is no additional loss of biological habitat or excessive land gouging. For this Project, LEED ND was not respected nor observed why? Why was LEED ND neither observed nor respected as a selected “smart growth” site? Oddly, the County General Plan recognizes the importance of LEED ND criteria and cites them as part of its principles. But, the DEIR and the applicant has subverted them in this case. What was the reason that the DEIR did not analyze the Project in terms of its consistency with LEED ND ? Given that, this project is a “leapfrog development, it must be certified as consistent with LEED ND requirements or its equivalent? If using an equivalent standard for certification, what is the equivalent standard? In a few cases where the SP/GPA proposes amendments to Mobility Element road classifications or acceptable LOS levels, the DEIR argues that the SP/GPA is not inconsistent with the GP because relaxing the standards makes it consistent. Again, the point here is that consistency is achieved only by amending the General Plan to fit the project Why? The DEIR (Section 3.1.4, p 3-56, Land Use Planning, line 4) refers the reader to the Specific Plan, and asserts falsely (p. 3-65) that “the project’s conformance with other General Plan policies is detailed in the Specific Plan. Overall the project would be consistent with the General Plan; therefore land use impacts associated with policy inconsistencies would be less than significant.” Please explain how the overall project would be consistent with the General Plan? It is important to note here that these analyses are NOT in the Specific Plan or a GPAR, even though this would be no substitute for the CEQA requirement. The Specific Plan text does NOT include a General Plan Amendment Report (GPAR). Historically, a GPAR presents the details of a GPA and discusses its consistency, or lack of consistency, with GP elements. But, this application omits this crucial report. Why? I mentioned this question both on the phone and before in this document? Page 9 - 56


10


The DEIR fails to disclose the extent to which this SP/GPA is inconsistent with the County’s planning documents. Land use impacts are much broader and more fundamental than what has been disclosed. Amendments to suit this SP/GPA would require rejecting the GP’s foundational vision: Smart Growth. How is this to be achieved?

As stated it is not the intention of the San Diego General Plan to drop “new villages” into semi-rural and rural areas. To the contrary, the County General Plan is rooted in its “Smart Growth” intention. Smart Growth is a two-sided concept. On the one hand Smart Growth locates future development in areas where infrastructure is established; AND on the other hand, Smart Growth also retains or enhances the County’s rural character, economy, environmental resources, and unique communities. These are integrated, co-dependent concepts. They work together. How does this project of 5000 people of approximately 608 acres of infrastructure-lacking Semi-Rural and Rural land become consistent with both interdependent aspects of Smart Growth as they are expressed across and interconnected with the web of GP Guiding Principles, Goals and Policies that have been put in place to bring about the County’s Smart Growth Vision? The DEIR asserts that the project is consistent with the GP Community Development Model and with LEED Neighborhood Development Certification standards. The proposal fails to meet essential requirements of both. As listed before in this document the definition of LEED ND and what has been submitted by the applicant do not agree. Why has staff accepted this project under this guise? 1. The General Plan already accommodates more growth than SANDAG projects for 2050. The DEIR fails to justify the need for 1746 additional homes, 90,000 additional SF of commercial. Consistency with Land Use Goal 1 (LU-1) and Policy 1.2 (LU 1.2) are especially crucial for this project’s approval. This goal and policy speak directly to the requirements for establishing NEW villages in San Diego County. How does this project meet the Land Use Goal or the Policy? Land Use Goal 1: Primacy of the Land Use Element. A land use plan and development doctrine that sustain the intent and integrity of the Community Development Model and the boundaries between Regional Categories. Land Use Policy 1.2: Leapfrog Development. Prohibit leapfrog development which is inconsistent with the Community Development Model. Leapfrog Development restrictions do not apply to new villages that are designed to be consistent with the Community Development Model, that provide necessary services and facilities, and that are designed to meet the LEED Neighborhood Development Certification or and equivalent. For purposes of this policy, leapfrog development is defined as Village densities located away from established villages or outside established water and sewer service boundaries. (See applicable community plan for possible relevant policies.) This SP/GPA is INCONSISTENT with both the Community Development Model and with LEED Neighborhood Development Certification Standard. (No LEED ND “equivalent” has been developed to our knowledge; nor is one cited in the Specific Plan or the DEIR. By definition an “equivalent” standard would have to include LEED ND’s location prerequisite or it would not be an equivalent standard). Page 10 - 56


11


Inconsistent with LEED Neighborhood Development Certification standards and Inconsistent with the Community Development Model The General Plan states (San Diego County General Plan: Land Use Framework; Community Development Model, p.3-6): “The Community Development Model directs the highest intensities and greatest mix of new uses to Village areas, while directing lower-intensity uses such as estate-style residential lots and agricultural and agricultural operations to Semi-Rural areas .... To facilitate a regional perspective the Regional Categories of Village, Semi-Rural and Rural Lands have been applied to all privately-owned lands …” First, as the above statement in the County General Plan makes clear, the Community Development Model is not a moveable abstract concept. If this were true then Village “puzzle pieces” could be dropped into Semi-Rural and Rural lands anywhere in the County and pronounced consistent with the Community Development Model. How did this project pass the Community Development Model as it is not consistent and is located in a semi-rural area of the County? Rather, the Community Development Model reflects a complex of planning principles and ideas that are expressed through the General Plan’s Regional Categories. It is the assignment of a particular Regional Land Use Category to a particular piece of land that this SP/GPA proposes to amend. The proposal therefore is inconsistent with the Community Development Model. Again, consistency would be achieved only by amending the General Plan to fit the project. Why? In the General Plan (p 3-7) “Village areas function as the center of community planning areas and contain

the highest population and development densities. Village areas are typically served by both water and wastewater systems. Ideally, a Village would reflect a development pattern that is characterized as compact, higher density development that is located within walking distance of commercial services, employment centers, civic uses, and transit.”

The proposed site is designated not for Village development but for large semi-rural parcels (SR 10 and SR-

4). This proposal to plop a Village into the middle of an area that the Community Development Model designates for Semi-Rural and Rural development requires AMENDING the Community Development Model. Why was this not done? If the General Plan is to be unusable by developers as it is after 13 years of work then why have it?

This SP/GPA is located many miles from areas that the Community Development Model designates for Village development: miles from employment centers, shopping, entertainment, medical services, and civic organizations and activities and transportation. How does this project meet any of the LEED-ND or “smart growth” ideals?

As for infrastructure, there are few existing roads in the area and they are built and planned to service Semi-

Rural and Rural development, as is the current plan. Despite proposing intense Village development, the proponents also propose to retain or reduce capacities of these roads.

With an additional total of cars based on the Counties 10 trips a day per household and the current

traffic on this two lane road how does this money maker for the developer plan to abate/mitigate the traffic?

Page 11 - 56


12


The intent of the Community Development Model for Villages is to intensify development in existing

Villages -- not to create NEW Villages through the destruction of Semi-Rural and Rural lands. The Community Development Model was applied in Bonsall during the General Plan update process. Village boundaries were drawn. Village densities were planned to feather from the commercial and mixed use core to meet the Semi-Rural designations. The Bonsall community’s traditional “crossroads” where road, water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as schools, churches, shops and businesses are already in place. We are not interested in changing the Community plan from agricultural, estate lots and an equestrian life style to a high density Village to provide leapfrog development. How is the County going to define Villages in the future based on this project and its requested amendment to the General Plan.

How many and which Goals and Policies would have to be amended to accommodate this SP/GPA? This

is the question. We are arguing that the SP/GPA requires such broad and fundamental changes to the County General Plan that the project cannot be accommodated without scrapping the County’s core Vision.

Second, the project design itself defies the GP principles, goals and policies for Village development, or Village expansion, which the Community Development Model reflects. The 608-acre project site, only a portion of which is actually owned by the applicant, sprawls 2 miles N-S,

and 2 miles E-W across several thousand acres, largely in active agriculture. These surrounding acres are owned by people whose dreams and ambitions for their rural properties are in accord with the Community Development Model’s Regional Category assignment: Semi-Rural and Rural.

The sprawling shape of the site creates some 8 miles of edge effects that will threaten surrounding

agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry that the GP Community Development Model protects by designating this area for Semi-Rural and Rural development.

With 1746 units and 90,000 SF of commercial on 608-acres, there is insufficient land available for

“feathering” residential densities as the Community Development Model intends and describes.

Please clarify and answer the above statements as they are questions regarding the project and the GP conflicts?

The site requires 3 separate commercial nodes to support the “walk-able” claim. It is a stretch to characterize the project as a “walk-able Village” when it is, in fact three circles of dense housing, two of them are at least a mile from the what the Community Development Model

How does this project characterize as development Village amenities not as LEED does. The LEED standard for “walking distance” is ½ mile, the GP also cites ½ mile (GP, p.3-8). Why Is this project allowed to change what LEED stands for and our General Plan’s Village and “Smart Growth” definition?

This is not the “walk-able” compact Village it pretends to be. Why is the project allowed to state that it is?

Page 12 - 56


13


Chapter 1 of the General Plan contains an Introduction and Overview with some direct statements, such as: P 1-4 The General Plan must be referred to in its entirety, including separately bound portions (such as community plans). While the GP is internally consistent, some issues are addressed through multiple policies and some receive refined and more detailed direction in Community Plans. P 1-5 Policies cannot be applied independently If you are a SD County resident or property owner, the GP indicates the general types of uses that are permitted around your home and changes that may affect your neighborhood, and the policies the County will use to evaluate development applications that might affect you or your neighbors. The Plan also informs you regarding how the County plans to improve mobility infrastructure, continue to provide adequate parks, schools, police, fire, and other public services, protect valued open spaces and environmental resources, and … How does this project meet or somehow become consistent with the General Plan with so many goals and policies being ignored in the General Plan? Please don’t insult me with the “it will once it is approved.” The essence of the General Plan lies in its goals, policies, and implementation programs how does this project meet the goals, policies and programs? ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

2.6.5.1 Archaeological Resources M-CR-1: Prior to approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall implement the data recovery program prepared by Mary Robbins-Wade (Affinis 2013) for site CASDI-20436. The data recovery program shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any grading and/or improvements. All data recovery shall include a Luiseño Native American monitor. Have the tribes commented and selected the Native American monitor? Under 2.6.1.4 Records Search Results: CA-SDI-4808 was originally recorded during the archaeological survey for the proposed I-15. It was described as a “small milling site, which may be considered a branch of CASDI-4807. CA-SDI-4808 was tested in 1978 to determine site boundaries and evaluate significance. The report concluded that the assemblage appears to be much too limited to make a case for any type of site, which would be distinct from the two villages during San Luis Rey II times. The previous survey concluded that no hypothesis can be made at this time regarding its function during a possible earlier occupation.” The 1978 study is out of date why has a more recent study been properly and thoroughly conducted? Page 13 - 56


14


If review of the justification by the local tribes shows the study to be inadequate, will a new study be required? After talking with several representatives of both the local Indian tribes and the Director of the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento several sites have not be identified by this developer and a discussion has be ongoing and will continue either prior to submittal to the Planning Commission or after their possible approval. Statements by them should be of great concern to the developer and the County. This was written in statement form but interest is in how is this issue being handled?

2.6.1.4 Records Search Results The TR and DEIR propose to use studies that are nearly 35 years old. They need to be re-examined by today's standards and in the light of additional information?

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2.5.1.2 Vegetation Communities

The Biological Resources Report [the Report] identifies three sensitive plant species present on-site: Engelmann oak, prostrate spineflower, and southwestern spiny rush. All three are on the County’s List D of sensitive plant species and all three are reported as relatively small numbers of individuals. Do listed plants have to be represented on-site in large numbers to gain significance? Is there quantitative data available to know whether the population sizes found on-site are significant within the region? If not, how is it determined that a local population is insignificant? Aren’t rare, threatened or species of concern logically less numerous in most plant formations?

2.5.2 Analysis of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance 2.5.2.1 – Special Status Species The Biological Resources Report [the Report] of the DEIR lists 13 federal/state species of special concern or Group 1 species of animals that would be impacted by the development of the Lilac Hills Ranch project [the Project] ranging from orange-throated whiptail lizards to southern mule deer. Reptiles and small mammals are judged to be at greatest risk for direct impact because they move more slowly and likely would suffer greater losses during construction activities, while larger mammals and birds are more mobile and could possibly escape to somewhere else more easily. Is the DEIR saying that reptiles, amphibians and small mammals would likely be sacrificed for this Project given their relative immobility? What are the population densities of amphibians, reptiles and small mammals that are likely to be extirpated by construction operations? To where would birds and larger mammals be dispersed? What are the territorial ramifications and chances of survival for these displaced species? Page 14 - 56


15


For some of the anticipated species that were not observed during the directed surveys, e.g. the coastal California gnatcatcher, it appears that the timing of the directed surveys took place during the less than optimum periods of July and August, the extreme end of the season. Although still within the survey guidelines, they were conducted during a very dry year, which minimizes the chance of sighting such species on-site. Since this was within the guidelines but a very dry year would a second survey be conducted on such a large acreage project? The surveys were also compressed into a two-week period [3 surveys on three consecutive Tuesdays], which minimizes the chance of observing the gnatcatchers. Why were such directed surveys conducted so late during a dry year? Why were the surveys scheduled in such a compressed time period at the end of the season? While reviewing the Attachment 1, Post-Survey Notification of Focused Surveys for Least Bell’s Vireo [LBV] for the I-15/395 Master-Planned Community MPA, it was noticed that Figures 1, 2, & 3 indicate a much reduced Project area and boundary for the least Bell’s vireo survey than is expected for the present Project. This seems to indicate that the survey was completed on a Project site that significantly differs from the present Project. How can the cited survey be appropriate and complete for the present Project? The addition of considerable acreage since the May, June, & July 2011 LBV surveys means that the additional areas were not properly or adequately surveyed for least Bell’s vireo. Will the applicant re-survey these new areas included in the present Project during the appropriate breeding season? The wetlands that are appropriate habitat for this species extend into the subsequently acquired acreage not represented on the submitted map. Further, the Project boundaries shown to include the survey areas mapped in the Biological Resources Report for the coastal California gnatcatcher do not match the present Project boundaries. The survey maps [Figures 1, 2, & 3 of Attachment 2, Post-survey Notification of Focused Survey for Coastal California Gnatcatcher, I-15/395 Master Planned Community MPA] indicate a much reduced Project area and boundary for the gnatcatcher survey than is expected for the present Project. This seems to indicate that the survey was completed on a Project site that significantly differs from the present Project. How can the cited survey be appropriate and complete for the present Project? The addition of considerable acreage since the July/August 2011 gnatcatcher surveys means that the additional areas were not properly or adequately surveyed for gnatcatchers. Will the applicant re-survey these new areas included in the present Project? The Report suggests that although these anticipated species, and others not listed in the Report, would be impacted by habitat loss caused by grading, construction, and human occupation, it finds that the impacts would be: “…less than significant given the wide ranges of the species and the fact that the project does not contain a regionally significant population of these species.” How can that be possible to arrive at this conclusion? Page 15 - 56


16


The analysis fails to: 1. Demonstrate with data or suggest what a regionally significant population for any of the cited species is; 2. Does not estimate the on-site population density of any of the cited species to allow a comparison of the site to the region; 3. And, does not explain how the scope of a species’ range can exempt the loss of a local population. The loss of local populations or portions of local populations within a species’ range does not affect the notional range of the species necessarily, but does have significance in reducing the regional population of a species within the range boundaries. Do the ranges they refer to include urban as well as undeveloped areas, agricultural as well as natural areas, and what is their extent and density? Within cismontane San Diego County, most habitats and wildlife populations have a mosaic distribution as a result of human occupation and transportation corridors. To what extent has the historical range of any of these species already been diminished, making even small, local populations, like those on-site, significant? On what basis was the determination made that on-site populations of the 13 species were not consistent with other significant local or regional populations? Given the mosaic distribution of those 13 species within the county and southern California, how does the Report distinguish the Project’s on-site populations as being insignificant compared to other off-site populations that may be deemed significant? There was no data presented that showed any quantitative or qualitative measure of the significance of the on-site population sizes of the 13 species, or their relationship or linkage to nearby off-site populations. WHY? The fact of their presence suggests that there is some significance. With the paucity of data presented can we reasonably conclude that ‘on-site populations’ are not a significant part of a larger regional population? The edge effect impacts noted by the DEIR (i.e., noise, lighting, invasive plants, grading encroachments, proximal human presence, etc.) to these 13 sensitive species are stated to: “…be less than significant considering the number of individuals of each species to remain after implementation of the project would be low.” However, since the Report has not quantified: 1. The existing on-site population densities; 2. The population density thresholds that are deemed significant; 3. Or, the expected on-site population densities after construction of the Project, How can the Report establish that the impacts are “less than significant?” Are there data that have not been reported? Page 16 - 56


17


Should not the Report have presented an objective basis for the threshold of significance? The Project would directly impact eucalyptus woodland, orchards, and oak woodlands. This would result in the direct loss of functional nesting habitat for raptors. The Project could also indirectly impact nesting raptors that remain on-site or adjacent to the Project through edge effects, such as close human occupation, noise and lighting why was this information not included in the report? Further, construction operations, blasting for years also have the potential to disrupt nesting and breeding among raptors. Raptors are protected, as a group, by California Fish and Wildlife codes. The DEIR suggests that this disruption could be mitigated by scheduling construction outside of raptor breeding season, implementing some sort of noise attenuation measures or conducting surveys to impose construction avoidance measures. How is this to be achieved? Would the applicant, or the County, seriously consider limiting construction to the August to December portion of the year? What are the limits of effectiveness of the hinted at attenuation measures? And, since phase one of the Project surrounds the principle open space and raptor nesting corridor being proposed for the Project, would the applicant actually limit construction near that nesting area? Or, would the applicant mitigate the mitigation by trying to survey the potential impact out of existence? The DEIR asks the reader to “Refer to Table 1-3, Project Design Considerations, in subchapter 1.2.2 for more details” about preconstruction nesting raptor surveys and complete avoidance measures. The Table of Contents directs the reader to “Table 1-3, Summary of Additional Project Design Considerations, page 1-34,” however, the table is missing from that page and every other page in section 1.2. Is this information available somewhere else? And, if so, where? Does this missing table information address the effects on nesting raptors from blasting? Will the blasting component of the grading be timed to avoid nesting periods of raptors? Blasting activities are likely to have a much more dramatic affect on nesting birds at a much greater distance than the apparently less significant rumbling of bulldozers and earthmovers. Despite a lack of data to inform the public on the decibel contours that raptors find irritating enough to preclude breeding, the DEIR reaches the conclusion that, “raptor nesting impacts would be less than significant. This is incongruent with the information presented. How is this done? The DEIR addresses raptor foraging areas saying, “Almost all of the on-site habitats are suitable for raptor foraging. The project would directly impact 538.29 acres of the 610.76-acre site [reportedly, it is 608-acres], which is 88% of the raptor foraging habitat on-site. This would result in the direct loss of foraging habitat for raptors. The project could also indirectly impact foraging habitat that remains on-site or adjacent to the project through edge effects…” [underline added] Page 17 - 56


18


The DEIR goes on to say that the impact of the Project to the raptor foraging area is more than 5% of that foraging habitat on-site. And yet, this declared significant impact to 538-acres of forage area would be mitigated by phasing the purchase or designation on-site of mitigation acreage based only on the native vegetation lost to the Project [about 81-acres or 15% of the total], not the agricultural lands to be sacrificed to the Project. How is this possible? As the DEIR says, raptors make significant, and productive use of the orchards, vineyards and row crops present on the Project site for foraging. Why would the applicants not have to mitigate the loss of forage area represented by the agricultural lands on-site as well? Is the applicant saying that raptors, with 608-acres on which to forage, can ‘get by’ with a small percentage of the present foraging acreage at a new mitigation site? Will the edge effects caused by the presence of the Project on-site (i.e., noise, lighting, proximal human presence, dogs, cats, etc.) render any attempted on-site mitigation of foraging area loss within the planned 102-acres of open space less than significant? The DEIR says such edge effects may compromise on-site mitigation. And if that is true, how will such effects be monitored and mitigated? And, do these types of edge effects render the planned designated open spaces ineffective for the purposes they are being set aside? The on-site restoration of wetlands may be seen as possible and acceptable mitigation by the applicant and the county, but since the entire 608-acres has been functioning as raptor foraging area heretofore, the idea that any of the 608-acre Project site could be used to mitigate the loss of that same foraging area is an exercise in double-counting will that be done? Table 1-2 in Chapter one of the DEIR shows the grading quantities by phase to be cut and filled. According to this table, the first two phases will have deficits of fill compared to the amount to be cut in each those phases. Since the applicant claims that the 4-Million cubic yards of earth to be moved on the Project site will not require import or export to or from the site, borrowing from future phases will be necessary. Will the applicant adjust the timing and purchase of mitigation acreage to accommodate the borrowing of fill from future phases that will prematurely impact raptor foraging during the earlier phases? Will that grading activity in future phases adversely affect raptor nesting in the earlier phases as well as the future phase that is to make up the fill deficit? Black-tailed jackrabbits were observed on-site. While a ‘species of concern’, the DEIR suggests that the impact to this species is less than significant, largely because it is judged [without data] to have a less than significant local population. Finding a black-tailed jackrabbit anywhere in northern San Diego County is becoming exceedingly rare. To suggest insignificance for this species, the authors of the DEIR should cite census data showing that the individuals observed on the Project site are not the last remaining members of the species in the north county region. It is possible that the population on the Project site is the last within the region. How can this be justified as less than significant? Page 18 - 56


19


It is noted that the Project will be pumping ground water from existing wells on-site. Since the open space riparian woodlands that run nearly the length of the Project and transect it at several points are dependent on adequate ground water to support the oaks, willows and other riparian species, how will the applicant manage the long term ground water levels in the open spaces? How will the drawdown of the projects wells impact other agricultural wells in the area? Where is the study? The applicant is proposing to hand off those riparian open spaces to another agency of some sort [still unnamed]. Will that eventual agency share responsibility and authority over the wells that will have a direct impact on the ground water availability for the riparian habitats? In the event of a drought, will the managing agency be able to restrict ground water pumping for the benefit of the open spaces? What will be the mechanism of implementing such a restriction? Will the managing agency have priority on ground water for irrigation to benefit the created and restored wetlands being offered as mitigation for the destruction of other wetland areas after the five-year establishment period?

2.5.2.2 – Issue 2: Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Community [M-Bio-2] The DEIR’s analysis of the impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities concludes that there will be significant impact and recommends that a Resource Management Plan [RMP] be prepared before the issuance of grading permits. Are there unknown factors that prevent the RMP from being prepared for release along with the DEIR and related documents beyond a conceptual treatment? So much of what is presented in the Specific Plan for this Project is conceptual or a possible, but undeclared, choice among several alternatives that it is difficult to consider a conceptual RMP as anything more than a suggestion. The wetland restoration and development areas [= open spaces] are biologically surveyed and mapped. Why is the plan not already developed? The DEIR is to relate meaningful, specific information in a way that the public can understand and to which it can respond. Delaying the development of the RMP until after Project approval hides the resolution of a significant impact from the public until there is much less, if any, chance of commenting meaningfully why is this delay acceptable to the County? Further, the DEIR is not clear on what entity will own and manage the proposed open space easements on which important habitat creation or restoration will take place, suggesting the possibility of a private conservancy, the County, or some other experienced entity. Which is it? Page 19 - 56


20


How will these easements be financed into the future? The DEIR is indefinite about endowments or Community Facility District formation or some other finance mechanism. How will the applicant ensure the financial stability of the open space easements in perpetuity without burdening County taxpayers?

JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WATERWAYS [M-BIO-3 and M-BIO-4]

The DEIR identifies significant impacts to jurisdictional waters caused by the Project and proposes to mitigate that loss with restoration of degraded wetlands and creation of new wetlands adjacent to the existing wetlands on-site in open space areas. The re-vegetation plan presented as M-BIO-4 is not clear regarding its success criteria. That plan requires 80% transplant/container plant survival in year 1. Is the allowance of 20% plant failure in year 1 made up in year 2 with replanting? Is the required native plant cover percentage in year 2 based on percentage of total plant cover, including non-native species? Or, is it a requirement that 50% of the total surface area must be covered with native species? Similarly, is the 50% diversity requirement in year 2, diversity of native species versus non-native species? Perhaps a better question is how does one arrive at a percentage of diversity? And, what is the meaning of the density percentage compared to the cover percentage? What is the proposed methodology for determining these parameters? Quadrats? Transects? Estimation? The Biological Resources Report is uncertain which would be employed. Shouldn’t this plan be presented in a more complete and understandable form? The Report acknowledges that the open space areas within the Project would be largely confined to the drainage courses that the Project will avoid [Biological Resources Report 3.2.8, p. 81]. The Report describes the open space areas as “…narrow and mostly surrounded by development except along the western and southern boundary of the project.” The Report also suggests that significant edge effect impacts on the proposed open space areas of the Project would result from increased human access, potential increases in predation/competition on native wildlife from domestic animals, potential increases in invasive plant species or other domestic pests, alterations to natural drainage patterns, potential noise effects and potential effects on wildlife species due to increases in night time lighting. These significant impacts would most affect sensitive riparian birds , but, the DEIR says, ‘habitat quality, functions and values would likely decrease also.” Page 20 - 56


21


So, shouldn’t the Report and DEIR also conclude that species other than birds [rodents, reptiles, amphibians, etc.] would suffer from the degraded habitat quality and propose mitigations directed at those other species? Surprisingly, the Report asserts, that these significant edge effects can be mitigated by a 50-foot buffer around the preserved wetlands in the on-site biological open spaces. A 50-foot buffer poses little challenge to domestic animals, children or adults, night lighting, invasive plant species or other domestic pests. Adding fencing and signage is only marginally helpful. How will the applicant ensure the integrity of the preserved wetlands and open space in the face of these significant impacts? How will the mitigation of these impacts be monitored and adequately enforced? Why is there no definitive plan described in the DEIR that addresses how these preserved wetlands will be secure from the reported threats? What was the basis for dismissing the significant impacts by simply adopting a 50-foot buffer? There will be trails within the limited building zone [LBZ]. How will the LBZ address the edge effects cited?

2.5.5.3 Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites

The DEIR says that the impacts to wildlife movement and wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. However, riparian woodland and wetland corridors are the conduits for movement of many animal species. The principal drainage for the Project and its surrounding area runs along the western edge of the Project site with multiple tributary drainages running through the Project in southwesterly directions toward the principal drainage. This drainage system, and its associated wetlands and riparian woodlands, offers transit corridors for the animals inhabiting the Project site as well as neighboring properties. However, the Project is proposing culvert pipes under the roads that transect the wetland corridors that will range from 18-inches to 54-inches in diameter. Six of the seven wetland crossings are proposed to have culverts of 18- to 30-inches diameter. These culverts are too small to allow effective transit by wildlife and will impose barriers to movement. To be effective transit elements under the roads crossing the wetlands and to encourage wildlife to avoid crossing the surface of the roads, such culverts should be a minimum of 54-inches to accommodate larger mammals. What is the basis for proposing smaller pipes? Bridging should be considered for several of the crossings why was this not included in the plan? While these corridors have not been ‘designated’ in the draft MSCP/PAMA plans for the County, they perform the same function in the area of the Project site as the corridors delineated in the MSCP/PAMA plan, only on a more local, or secondary scale. To say that their destruction is less than significant must depend on whether the on-site and nearby off-site populations can be quantified as significant or not. That has not been done. WHY NOT? Page 21 - 56


22


However, given the scope of the Project, likely any local value of these drainage wetlands as transit corridors will be compromised by the edge effects caused by the Project and the direct impacts caused by road crossings within the Project. What objective assessment has been done to determine the significance of these impacts, if any? As for nursery sites, of the 13 Group 1 species observed on-site, 6 are reptiles or mammals. The seven bird species would likely nest in the riparian woodland or orchard areas. Why is this not significant?

2.5.5.4 Local Policies, Ordinances, Adopted Plans

The DEIR suggests that the Project would comply with several County, State and Federal policies and laws relating to biological resources. However, the DEIR notes that under the Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP] for coastal sage scrub [CSS] vegetation, there is no de minimis limit for significance. Yet, there is no data to support the conclusion that the 17-acres of CSS to be removed by the Project is insignificant, even in the face of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s estimate that in the five county southern California region covered by NCCP, approximately 85 to 90 percent of the historically occurring CSS has been extirpated. The DEIR seems overly casual about designating this 17-acres of CSS as insignificant. And, interestingly, the NCCP plan for San Diego County will be manifested in the still draft MSCP/PAMA. So, what are the ramifications for mitigation if the draft MSCP/PAMA is not approved? Will there be a significance threshold established in the MSCP/PAMA for CSS if it is approved? Doesn’t the nibbling away of CSS, even when in small stands, inexorably work against the principles of the NCCP CSS program? At what acreage does a stand of CSS become significant without a delineated animal species observed on-site?

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Report and DEIR pay little attention to the cumulative effects of the Project on regional biological resources. The Report and DEIR focus on effects within the boundaries of the Project with little acknowledgement of the ramifications of this Project on the County as a whole or the Bonsall and Valley Center Planning Area. The Report cites 8 projects that were compared and evaluated against the proposed Project. The review asserts that the majority of the impacts generated by this collection of historic, current and planned projects were to agricultural lands, with little to no impacts to native upland or riparian habitats. Of course, the Report makes that statement with some satisfaction, apparently not realizing that the loss of agricultural land is contrary to one of the County’s General Plan Guiding Principles, as well. Further, all eight of the referenced properties in Table 7 [p.84] are much smaller than the proposed Project, the largest being 44.2-acres and the smallest 5-acres. All are within a few miles of the proposed Project and all are planning parcels larger than 2-acres, some as large as 4-acres in compliance with the present county General Plan and the Bonsall and Valley Center Community Plan. The proposed Project does not comply with the county’s General Plan or the Bonsall Community Plan in this regard. Page 22 - 56


23


Bonsall has lost 804 acres of agriculture based on the General Plan specific requests and this project appears to be consistent with the “new” goal of developing all agriculture into roof tops. Why when the General Plan states it wants to support agriculture would this project even be considered? The comparison doesn’t seem an apt one for analyzing regional cumulative effects. If we take San Diego County as the ‘region’ or even North San Diego County as the region, we should be looking at the historic extent of coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, southern coast live oak riparian woodland, coast live oak woodland, southern willow scrub, southern willow riparian woodland, and wetlands within that area compared to what exists today. We should then ask to what extent have these vegetation communities been extirpated and to what extent the remaining examples of those communities have significance. Comparing proposed destruction in one project with destruction that has or will result in a handful of other smaller projects isn’t an effective measurement of cumulative effects. Will the county examine meaningful cumulative effects within the entire county or, at least, within the northern part of the county?

The County’s Project Alternatives Analysis in Chapter 4 of the Lilac Hills Ranch DEIR is grossly defective in meeting CEQA requirements in five areas that are summarized below:

1. The DEIR Objectives against which the Alternatives are judged for Environmental Impacts are biased and should be changed to equitable Objectives, from which compliance against can be fairly measured.

2. The Project does not meet its own Objectives, when fairly assessed. 3. There is a valid offsite alternate – the Downtown Escondido Specific Plan Area (SPA) that needs to be

included as an Alternate. 4. The Reduced Footprint, Reduced Intensity, and 2.2 C Hybrid are not valid Alternates. These three

“Alternates” are density variations of the Project. These Alternates are also not described in enough detail to provide informed Environmental Impact Analysis.

5. The Alternates were not fairly assessed in the DEIR by the Applicant. 6. When all eight Alternates are fairly assessed, the Downtown Escondido SPA meets more Objectives

than the Project or any Alternates. Overview The Lilac Hills Ranch Project Alternates from Section 4.0 of are below: 1. No Project/No Development Alternative 2. No Project / Existing Legal Lot Alternative (49 EDU + no commercial) 3. General Plan Consistent Alternative (110 EDU + no commercial) 4. Reduced Footprint Alternative (1251 EDU + 6 acres of commercial) 5. Reduced Intensity Alternative (881 EDU + 5.6 acres of commercial) 6. 2.2C (Hybrid) Alternative (1365 EDU + 15.3 acres of commercial) There are no issues with the either the selection as an Alternate or analysis performed for the No Project/No Development Alternative, No Project / Existing Legal Lot Alternative, and General Plan Consistent Alternatives. Why is this DEIR so incomplete and when will an alternate be considered such as the Escondido project? Page 23 –56


24


INCONSISTENCE WITH GENERAL PLAN & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MODEL There is a full Environmental Impact for these Alternatives provided by the San Diego County General Plan dated August 3, 2011. All three of these alternatives were in the baseline (or close enough for measurement error) for the General Plan. The relevant Environmental Impact has been disclosed and analyzed in sufficient detail as part of the recent General Plan process. The Communities of Bonsall and Valley Center support the General Plan Consistent Alternative as the proper land use and zoning for this Project. The 110 unit residential density with A70 zoning is the maximum density land use that the Circulation Element Road Network will support without Direct Development Impact. 1- DEIR Objectives are biased and should be changed WHY WAS THIS ALLOWED? The legal adequacy of selecting many of the eight Project Objectives does not conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2 - The Project does not meet its own Objectives, when fairly assessed WHY WAS THIS ALLOWED? Consistency with Objective One – THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE ONE The full text of Objective One is below: “Develop a community within northern San Diego County in close proximity to a major transportation corridor consistent with the County’s Community Development Model for a walkable pedestrian-oriented mixed-use community.” The proposed Lilac Hills Ranch Subdivision is a classic urban sprawl development. All of the transportation will be via automobiles, and the existing and proposed Project post-construction road infrastructure does not support the 9 fold increase in traffic and related Direct Development Impact the Project generates to the public road network. A fundamental premise of Smart Growth is to lower automobile dependency as compared to average Development. The Accretive proposed Lilac Hills Ranch Development does not comply with Smart Growth Principles.

The SANDAG average miles/trip for all of San Diego County is 5.8 miles/trip.

The Accretive Urban Sprawl (AUS) project is proposing an automobile based urban sprawl community that even with exceedingly high internal trip rates is 47% higher than the San Diego County average ( 8.52/5.8) trip distance.

Page 24 - 56


25


How is the Lilac Hills Ranch project proposed development Smart Growth?

The ONLY mass transit that exists is the North County Transit District (NCTD) Bus Routes 388 and 389. The closest access is at SR 76 and Old Highway 395, a minimum 4 mile trip north from the project site. These routes run eight times a day and mainly link the Pala, Pauma, Rincon and Valley View Casinos to the Escondido Transit Center. If you are going to a regional shopping center or work center, you must take a 30 minute bus ride to the Escondido Transit Center and transfer to another route. The mass transit system only works if you are a Casino patron. This Project is not consistent with the San Diego County Community Development Model. It is Inconsistent with the Community Development Model which a subset of the San Diego General Plan. Why does the first Objective ignore the balance of the General Plan? Because the Proposed Project is patently inconsistent with the San Diego County General Plan, as well as the Community Development Model within the General Plan. Consistency with Objective Two – THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE TWO The full text with comment areas is below: “Provide a range of housing and lifestyle opportunities in a manner that encourages walking and riding bikes, and that provides public services and facilities that are accessible to residents of both the community and the surrounding area.” “in a manner that encourages walking and riding bikes” - With 10 Exceptions to Road Standards, the Covey Lane/West Lilac and Mountain Ridge/Circle R intersections, and the traffic load the Project will throw on internal and external roads, who will take the risk of walking or riding a bike? “public services and facilities that are accessible to residents of both the community and the surrounding area” – There are two issues with this statement. The first issue: what are the public services and facilities in this Project? A vague statement about a K-8 school site without any commitment to financing or endorsement by the School District, a vague description of the minimum acreage of Parks the County requires? Does the undefined Commercial content include a Supermarket or community market? A restaurant of any kind? A retail gasoline service station? The second issue: “accessible to residents of both the community and the surrounding area” – Accretive’s Traffic Impact Study does not show an influx of non-residents to the area. Is this because the Applicant is overly optimistically portraying the true Traffic Impact and related Direct Development impact of this Project? Consistency with Objective Three – THE PROJECT AND ALL ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE ARE EQUALLY INCONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE THREE Page 25 - 56


26


The full text is below: “Provide a variety of recreational opportunities including parks for active and passive activities, and trails available to the public that connect the residential neighborhoods to the town and neighborhood centers.” All Alternates are required to have a Discretionary Permit approved (including a Map approval for the General Plan Compliant Alternative) that must comply with this Objective. Consistency with Objective Four – THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE FOUR “Integrate major physical features into the project design, including major drainages, and woodlands creating a hydrologically sensitive community in order to reduce urban runoff.” There are three issues with this Objective. The first issue is that the Objective is so vague and subjective that compliance is not measurable. The second issue is with the statement: “Integrate major physical features into the project design, including major drainages, and woodlands” How is taking 608 acres of Rural Land primarily involved in Agriculture, disturbing 440 acres, and creating large areas of impermeable surfaces consistent with this Objective? The Project includes 83 acres of road surface and 68 acres of manufactured slopes. Is it desirable to increase storm water runoff volume and velocity with impermeable surfaces? Does introduction of large quantities of urban surface water runoff Total Dissolved Solids and Pathogens benefit the woodlands? The third issue is with the statement that follows: “creating a hydrologically sensitive community in order to reduce urban runoff.” Accretive is proposing disturbing 440 acres of 608 total acres of rural farm land and populating a high percentage of the 440 acres with impermeable surfaces. Is this what a hydrologically sensitive community is? Consistency with Objective Five – THE PROJECT AND ALL ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE ARE CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE FIVE The full text is below: “Preserve sensitive natural resources by setting aside land within a planned and integrated preserve area.” Any Project required to have a Discretionary Permit approved (including a Map approval for the General Plan Compliant Alternative) must comply with this Objective. Consistency with Objective Six – THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE SIX BECAUSE THE OBJECTIVE IS BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT EXPLAIN WHY THIS OBJECTIVE IS CONSISTENT? Page 26 - 56


27


The full text with comment areas highlighted is below: “Accommodate future population growth in San Diego County by providing a range of diverse housing types, including mixed-use and senior housing.” In this Objective, the County re-brands dense Urban Sprawl as a desired attribute. The General Plan Alternate does not meet this objective, because it does not have Urban Density mixed use and senior housing. This Objective is another example of where the County has structured the Objectives of the EIR so narrowly with an intended bias such that only the Lilac Hills Ranch Project as proposed by the Applicant can fulfill the Project Objectives. This approach leads to a self-serving and biased environmental analysis. Why is this acceptable? Consistency with Objective Seven – THE PROJECT AND ALL ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE ARE CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE SEVEN The full text is below: “Provide the opportunity for residents to increase the recycling of waste.” Having an on-site recycling facility is not the sole opportunity to increase recycling of waste. The huge amounts of waste the Accretive Urban Sprawl (AUS) requires creation of a recycling center to reduce trash truck route miles such that the project perhaps marginally complies with Traffic Level of Service on trash day. All of the Alternatives comply with this Objective equally. Objective Eight - THE PROJECT AND MOST ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVE ARE CONSISTENT WITH OBJECTIVE EIGHT The full text is below: “Provide a broad range of educational, recreational, and social uses and economically viable commercial opportunities within a walkable distance from the residential uses.” Developing the Project at General Plan densities and preserving agriculture and residential based businesses (such as the existing Accretive Agricultural Operations Office located on 32444 Birdsong Drive) on the same or nearby Parcels achieves this Objective perhaps better than the Proposed 1746 EDU Accretive Urban Sprawl Project. 3 - A valid offsite alternate – the Downtown Escondido Specific Plan Area (SPA) has been deficiently ignored. There exists a reasonable off-site CEQA compliant Alternative to this Project – the 1746 EDU and 90,000 sq. ft. mixed use Escondido Downtown Specific Plan Area (SPA) Project. Page 27 - 56


28


The City of Escondido SINCE 2007 has been developing an infill redevelopment mixed use Downtown Specific Plan Area (SPA) less than 14 miles south from the proposed Lilac Hill Ranch project. The Escondido Downtown SPA has a (City of Esconido) General Plan build-out Equivalent Dwelling Unit increase (EDU) of 5,275 EDU plus additional mixed use commercial uses. Unlike the Accretive Project, the Downtown 1746 EDU Escondido Equivalent Project meets Smart Growth and LEED-ND location requirements, because it is an infill development with requisite infrastructure truly within walking distance of the Escondido Transit Center which has access to the Sprinter Train as well as being a hub for North County and Metropolitan Bus lines. Additionally, this location is less than a mile from access to I-15. The project has existing medical, school, fire, police, and most importantly, Circulation Element Roads and mass transit. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas impacts of siting the project in Downtown Escondido are orders of magnitude less than the proposed project site in rural greenfield agricultural lands. The impact on Biology, Agriculture, and Community are non-existent. The Escondido Downtown SPA supports a project of equivalent size to the proposed Accretive Lilac Hills Ranch project and is consistent with both the City of Escondido General Plan and the County of San Diego General Plan. The Downtown Escondido SPA also provides a more viable solution for senior living facilities, including Assisted Living, because it is within two miles from the two Palomar Hospitals and major medical facilities. The Downtown Escondido SPA document is available at the following link. http://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/pdfs/Planning/DowntownSpecificPlan.pdf Please also compare the Escondido Downtown SPA level of specificity and completeness of design to that of the Accretive Lilac Hills Ranch Specific Plan. The interim Escondido Downtown SPA is more complete than the Accretive Lilac Hills Ranch Specific Plan. The EIR for this project cannot exclude the Downtown Escondido SPA Alternate and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. 4 - The Reduced Footprint, Reduced Intensity, and 2.2 C Hybrid are not valid Alternates These three “Alternates” are density variations of the Project. These Alternates are also not described in enough detail to provide informed Environmental Impact Analysis. Table 1 below displays all of the information provided in the DEIR with the exception of a one page map for each Alternate: Page 28 - 56


29


The major observation from independent experts is that these three Alternate are linear scaled variants of the project with inadequate detail to assess Environment Impact. Why are these Alternates described so inadequately or not at all? The Applicant’s information has multiple math errors (refer to Attachment B – Table 4-1 from DEIR Chapter 4 Project Alternatives). The only other information provided is a one page Map that in two Alternatives did not even perform lot allocation (Attachment C- Reduced Footprint Map and Attachment D- Reduced Intensity Map). Page 29 - 56

Land UseGross Acreage

Units/Sq. Ft.

Gross Acreage

Units/Sq. Ft.

Gross Acreage

Units/Sq. Ft.

Gross Acreage

Units/Sq. Ft.

Single Family Detached 158.8 903 142.1 783 275.5 881 177.0 792Single Family Senior 75.9 468 71.1 468 0 75.9 468Single Family Attached 7.9 164 0 0 4.3 105Commercial/Mixed Use 15.3 211 6.0 5.6 15.3Water Reclamation 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4RF/Trailhead 0.6 0 0.6 0.6Detention Basin 9.4 5.4 5.5 5.5School Site 12.0 9.0 0 12.0Private Recreation 2.0 0 0 2.0Group Residential/Care 6.5 0 0 6.5Institutional 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7Park ‐ HOA 11.8 10.0 3.0 11.8Park ‐ Dedicated to County 12.0 6.0 9.0 12.0Biological Open Space 103.6 168.8 102.7 103.6Non‐circulating Road 45.7 45.7 41.5 43.1Circulating Road 37.6 37.6 21.5 30.0Common Areas/Agriculture 20.2 20.2 65.0 45.0Manufactured Slopes 67.5 67.5 65.0 50.0Other/Accretive Math Error* 8.1 5.5 0 0.3 Total 608.0 1746 608.0 1251 608.0 881 608.0 13

BONSALL COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP Dedicated to ......Dedicated to enhancing and preserving a rural...

Documents

Transcript of BONSALL COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP Dedicated to ......Dedicated to enhancing and preserving a rural...